In the case of religion, we might start with the competing, and mutually exclusive, hypotheses that (A) existence is a random event, or (B) existence is intelligently designed and purposeful.
To be scientific, you should start with a hypothesis which can be either proven or disproven - one which can be investigated - one which we can at least test.
Nor should we beg the question - your cases are NOT necessarily, or demonstrably, exclusive.
So, hypothesize "Existence is a random event." Prove true or false. Or
"There is an intelligent design and a purpose behind existence". Prove or disprove.
Leaving these minor <g> foibles aside, let's see.
What is meant by existence?
Existence of what?
Purposeful in what way? Towards what purpose?
Intelligent in what way?
or
Random in what sense (given we can only experience one existence, in hindsight)?
And then, we test or experiment how...? We investigate how...?
Face it, they both read more like (and probably are) post-graduate discussion topics on a philosophy degree...
I'd really question the scientific usefulness and validity of either side. I've maintained constantly that you cannot 'prove' the non-existence of something ineffable, by definition... we can show it to be unnecessary and maybe unlikely, but --
how can you prove that something of undefined detectability, ability, means and motive can or cannot do something unspecified?!
Believe as you wish. But try enforcing what you believe are the wishes of your god, and I'll raise you a Pixie, or maybe an imaginary friend.
The Pixie has as much influence over you as your god does over me, you know. |
